(06-26-2015 10:45 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:31 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Adding Coastal makes us 12/12 with two affiliates in football. If we want that gives us the option of dropping the affiliates to go to 10/12 or we could add NMSU as a full member drop Idaho and add another full member to be 12/14. In any case I have come to the conclusion that adding Coastal makes everyone happy in the end so it's a no-brainier. Overall I still like EKU as well but I now believe they should be added as part of the 12/14 setup.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hades of the western teams agreeing to dump the two affiliates without at least replacement western teams.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there's a political game at play here as well as an improving of the conference.

And the western teams don't appear ready to allow 2 eastern teams to be added. Nor should they.

I would say that CCU has the advantage over EKU in the east and Missouri State will have the advantage of a second addition with NMSU as full member.

(06-26-2015 10:45 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:31 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Adding Coastal makes us 12/12 with two affiliates in football. If we want that gives us the option of dropping the affiliates to go to 10/12 or we could add NMSU as a full member drop Idaho and add another full member to be 12/14. In any case I have come to the conclusion that adding Coastal makes everyone happy in the end so it's a no-brainier. Overall I still like EKU as well but I now believe they should be added as part of the 12/14 setup.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hades of the western teams agreeing to dump the two affiliates without at least replacement western teams.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there's a political game at play here as well as an improving of the conference.

And the western teams don't appear ready to allow 2 eastern teams to be added. Nor should they.

Didn't say we would dump them just that it would be an option. At this point we have gridlock and I am betting our goal to break that is the 12/14 option. The first move in that option is adding a new full member and Coastal seems to be the front runner.

(06-26-2015 10:52 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:45 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:31 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Adding Coastal makes us 12/12 with two affiliates in football. If we want that gives us the option of dropping the affiliates to go to 10/12 or we could add NMSU as a full member drop Idaho and add another full member to be 12/14. In any case I have come to the conclusion that adding Coastal makes everyone happy in the end so it's a no-brainier. Overall I still like EKU as well but I now believe they should be added as part of the 12/14 setup.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hades of the western teams agreeing to dump the two affiliates without at least replacement western teams.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there's a political game at play here as well as an improving of the conference.

And the western teams don't appear ready to allow 2 eastern teams to be added. Nor should they.

Didn't say we would dump them just that it would be an option. At this point we have gridlock and I am betting our goal to break that is the 12/14 option. The first move in that option is adding a new full member and Coastal seems to be the front runner.

No, the first move in that is to add Coastal [I agree on that] AND NMSU olympic sports. Gets us to 12-13. Then, when Idaho's contract is up, add MSU, getting the 12/14 setup.

(06-26-2015 11:21 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:52 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:45 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:31 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Adding Coastal makes us 12/12 with two affiliates in football. If we want that gives us the option of dropping the affiliates to go to 10/12 or we could add NMSU as a full member drop Idaho and add another full member to be 12/14. In any case I have come to the conclusion that adding Coastal makes everyone happy in the end so it's a no-brainier. Overall I still like EKU as well but I now believe they should be added as part of the 12/14 setup.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hades of the western teams agreeing to dump the two affiliates without at least replacement western teams.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there's a political game at play here as well as an improving of the conference.

And the western teams don't appear ready to allow 2 eastern teams to be added. Nor should they.

Didn't say we would dump them just that it would be an option. At this point we have gridlock and I am betting our goal to break that is the 12/14 option. The first move in that option is adding a new full member and Coastal seems to be the front runner.

No, the first move in that is to add Coastal [I agree on that] AND NMSU olympic sports. Gets us to 12-13. Then, when Idaho's contract is up, add MSU, getting the 12/14 setup.

The Sun Belt had 13 teams in oly sports back when Denver was a member for a few years.

(06-26-2015 11:21 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:52 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:45 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:31 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Adding Coastal makes us 12/12 with two affiliates in football. If we want that gives us the option of dropping the affiliates to go to 10/12 or we could add NMSU as a full member drop Idaho and add another full member to be 12/14. In any case I have come to the conclusion that adding Coastal makes everyone happy in the end so it's a no-brainier. Overall I still like EKU as well but I now believe they should be added as part of the 12/14 setup.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hades of the western teams agreeing to dump the two affiliates without at least replacement western teams.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there's a political game at play here as well as an improving of the conference.

And the western teams don't appear ready to allow 2 eastern teams to be added. Nor should they.

Didn't say we would dump them just that it would be an option. At this point we have gridlock and I am betting our goal to break that is the 12/14 option. The first move in that option is adding a new full member and Coastal seems to be the front runner.

No, the first move in that is to add Coastal [I agree on that] AND NMSU olympic sports. Gets us to 12-13. Then, when Idaho's contract is up, add MSU, getting the 12/14 setup.

Just not going to happen. This is not really a compromise. That would be basically forcing eastern schools to take a far west addition which results in additional expenses for eastern schools, but no additional revenue. It works well for Texas State, but not for an eastern school.

The basic idea from the beginning was to get to 12/12. I don't think that has changed. A 12/12 setup is the easiest to agree on. The East does not owe the West anything and what revenue does NMSU bring in?

(06-26-2015 11:57 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Just not going to happen. This is not really a compromise. That would be basically forcing eastern schools to take a far west addition which results in additional expenses for eastern schools, but no additional revenue. It works well for Texas State, but not for an eastern school.

The basic idea from the beginning was to get to 12/12. I don't think that has changed. A 12/12 setup is the easiest to agree on. The East does not owe the West anything and what revenue does NMSU bring in?

it doesn't work well for Texas State. It's still a plane trip out to them. FOR EVERYONE. So, NMSU is NOT a benefit to any team from a travel standpoint.

What they do benefit is everyone in strengthening the olympic sports. They would improve our basketball, they would at worst not hurt our baseball. Softball and women's basketball? Eh, whatever.

With a solid addition in the east in basketball, NMSU in the west, the change in scheduling rule, and another year or two, we could be knocking on a two bid league. That would be a tremendous revenue increase, which would FAR outweigh the additional travel costs.

(06-26-2015 11:21 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:52 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:45 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:31 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Adding Coastal makes us 12/12 with two affiliates in football. If we want that gives us the option of dropping the affiliates to go to 10/12 or we could add NMSU as a full member drop Idaho and add another full member to be 12/14. In any case I have come to the conclusion that adding Coastal makes everyone happy in the end so it's a no-brainier. Overall I still like EKU as well but I now believe they should be added as part of the 12/14 setup.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hades of the western teams agreeing to dump the two affiliates without at least replacement western teams.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there's a political game at play here as well as an improving of the conference.

And the western teams don't appear ready to allow 2 eastern teams to be added. Nor should they.

Didn't say we would dump them just that it would be an option. At this point we have gridlock and I am betting our goal to break that is the 12/14 option. The first move in that option is adding a new full member and Coastal seems to be the front runner.

No, the first move in that is to add Coastal [I agree on that] AND NMSU olympic sports. Gets us to 12-13. Then, when Idaho's contract is up, add MSU, getting the 12/14 setup.

Bingo. That should be the plan.

(06-26-2015 12:05 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:21 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:52 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:45 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:31 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Adding Coastal makes us 12/12 with two affiliates in football. If we want that gives us the option of dropping the affiliates to go to 10/12 or we could add NMSU as a full member drop Idaho and add another full member to be 12/14. In any case I have come to the conclusion that adding Coastal makes everyone happy in the end so it's a no-brainier. Overall I still like EKU as well but I now believe they should be added as part of the 12/14 setup.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hades of the western teams agreeing to dump the two affiliates without at least replacement western teams.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there's a political game at play here as well as an improving of the conference.

And the western teams don't appear ready to allow 2 eastern teams to be added. Nor should they.

Didn't say we would dump them just that it would be an option. At this point we have gridlock and I am betting our goal to break that is the 12/14 option. The first move in that option is adding a new full member and Coastal seems to be the front runner.

No, the first move in that is to add Coastal [I agree on that] AND NMSU olympic sports. Gets us to 12-13. Then, when Idaho's contract is up, add MSU, getting the 12/14 setup.

Bingo. That should be the plan.

Let's hope it is!

(06-26-2015 11:57 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Just not going to happen. This is not really a compromise. That would be basically forcing eastern schools to take a far west addition which results in additional expenses for eastern schools, but no additional revenue.

Well, adding NMSU would reduce costs from current conference play if for no other reason than
it would reduce the number of trips to the furthest schools in general because of division play.

Of course, any add could do the same. But NMSU would help in that regard.

I'm not soapbox advocating for it, it is what it is,
but I did realize that a Sun Belt add of NMSU would work for scheduling and travel.

(06-26-2015 12:00 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:57 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Just not going to happen. This is not really a compromise. That would be basically forcing eastern schools to take a far west addition which results in additional expenses for eastern schools, but no additional revenue. It works well for Texas State, but not for an eastern school.

The basic idea from the beginning was to get to 12/12. I don't think that has changed. A 12/12 setup is the easiest to agree on. The East does not owe the West anything and what revenue does NMSU bring in?

it doesn't work well for Texas State. It's still a plane trip out to them. FOR EVERYONE. So, NMSU is NOT a benefit to any team from a travel standpoint.

What they do benefit is everyone in strengthening the olympic sports. They would improve our basketball, they would at worst not hurt our baseball. Softball and women's basketball? Eh, whatever.

With a solid addition in the east in basketball, NMSU in the west, the change in scheduling rule, and another year or two, we could be knocking on a two bid league. That would be a tremendous revenue increase, which would FAR outweigh the additional travel costs.

No, the only way you add to revenue is the 2nd bid and NMSU does not get you there alone. NMSU has never received an at-large bid in the WAC. They have had to win the WAC tournament to get in and these days that is not to difficult. Texas State would have had the 2nd best RPI in the WAC this past season.

It is not easy to get an at-large bid in a mid-major conference. The whole conference has to play better and/or there has to be two really outstanding schools in the conference. The MVC got an at-large bid because of Wichita State this past season. Wichita State is a top 25 program.

Without a 2nd bid, they are just an additional expense. There is no rush to add NMSU if the conference wanted to move to 12/14. First, the majority of schools in the SBC need to play much better basketball. Then it could be considered.

Actually, bringing NMSU all sports in might save some travel money. A Divisional set up in Olympic Sports means an Eastern School makes limited trips to the Western schools (Perhaps 3 in a year for basketball instead of 6)

What it hurts in travel is the West, which will have to go there every year, but the West schools all have a previous relationship with NMSU and support them.

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:00 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:57 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Just not going to happen. This is not really a compromise. That would be basically forcing eastern schools to take a far west addition which results in additional expenses for eastern schools, but no additional revenue. It works well for Texas State, but not for an eastern school.

The basic idea from the beginning was to get to 12/12. I don't think that has changed. A 12/12 setup is the easiest to agree on. The East does not owe the West anything and what revenue does NMSU bring in?

it doesn't work well for Texas State. It's still a plane trip out to them. FOR EVERYONE. So, NMSU is NOT a benefit to any team from a travel standpoint.

What they do benefit is everyone in strengthening the olympic sports. They would improve our basketball, they would at worst not hurt our baseball. Softball and women's basketball? Eh, whatever.

With a solid addition in the east in basketball, NMSU in the west, the change in scheduling rule, and another year or two, we could be knocking on a two bid league. That would be a tremendous revenue increase, which would FAR outweigh the additional travel costs.

No, the only way you add to revenue is the 2nd bid and NMSU does not get you there alone. NMSU has never received an at-large bid in the WAC. They have had to win the WAC tournament to get in and these days that is not to difficult. Texas State would have had the 2nd best RPI in the WAC this past season.

It is not easy to get an at-large bid in a mid-major conference. The whole conference has to play better and/or there has to be two really outstanding schools in the conference. The MVC got an at-large bid because of Wichita State this past season. Wichita State is a top 25 program.

Without a 2nd bid, they are just an additional expense. There is no rush to add NMSU if the conference wanted to move to 12/14. First, the majority of schools in the SBC need to play much better basketball. Then it could be considered.

Some people you cannot convince whether it is Missouri State or NMSU...like arguing with a rock.

(06-26-2015 12:38 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:05 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  Bingo. That should be the plan.

Let's hope it is!

Setup in football would look like:

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Troy
South Alabama
Coastal Carolina

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas St
Texas St
New Mexico St
Missouri St

Basketball would look similar

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Troy
South Alabama
Coastal Carolina
Arkansas-Little Rock

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas St
Texas St
New Mexico St
Missouri St
Texas-Arlington

And finally Mens Soccer:

Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Coastal Carolina
Missouri St
Hartwick
Howard

I like the symmetry it brings. One hell of a baseball conference too.

(06-26-2015 01:14 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:38 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:05 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  Bingo. That should be the plan.

Let's hope it is!

Setup in football would look like:

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Troy
South Alabama
Coastal Carolina

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas St
Texas St
New Mexico St
Missouri St

Basketball would look similar

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Troy
South Alabama
Coastal Carolina
Arkansas-Little Rock

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas St
Texas St
New Mexico St
Missouri St
Texas-Arlington

And finally Mens Soccer:

Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Coastal Carolina
Missouri St
Hartwick
Howard

I like the symmetry it brings. One hell of a baseball conference too.

I hope this happens!

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No, the only way you add to revenue is the 2nd bid and NMSU does not get you there alone. NMSU has never received an at-large bid in the WAC. They have had to win the WAC tournament to get in and these days that is not to difficult. Texas State would have had the 2nd best RPI in the WAC this past season.

Apparently, you missed the part where I said "Adding someone in the east, along with NMSU, and the new scheduling rule... in a couple of years, we could be knocking on a second bid." I can see how you missed it though... I probably just didn't type it in the box.

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  It is not easy to get an at-large bid in a mid-major conference. The whole conference has to play better and/or there has to be two really outstanding schools in the conference. The MVC got an at-large bid because of Wichita State this past season. Wichita State is a top 25 program.

Without a 2nd bid, they are just an additional expense. There is no rush to add NMSU if the conference wanted to move to 12/14. First, the majority of schools in the SBC need to play much better basketball. Then it could be considered.

I'm not sure it is an additional expense. If we moved to a division set up, we wouldn't be sending our Olympic teams out to App State annually. We wouldn't be sending our teams to Georgia twice annually. We would be trading those trips with a trip to Las Cruces. It also increases the conference in Olympic sports, which puts us closer to the 2 bid league we all covet.

(06-26-2015 01:14 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:38 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:05 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  Bingo. That should be the plan.

Let's hope it is!

Setup in football would look like:

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Troy
South Alabama
Coastal Carolina

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas St
Texas St
New Mexico St
Missouri St

Basketball would look similar

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Troy
South Alabama
Coastal Carolina
Arkansas-Little Rock

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas St
Texas St
New Mexico St
Missouri St
Texas-Arlington

And finally Mens Soccer:

Georgia Southern
Georgia St
Appalachian St
Coastal Carolina
Missouri St
Hartwick
Howard

I like the symmetry it brings. One hell of a baseball conference too.

This just makes too much sense...therefore will probably never happen.

(06-26-2015 01:42 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No, the only way you add to revenue is the 2nd bid and NMSU does not get you there alone. NMSU has never received an at-large bid in the WAC. They have had to win the WAC tournament to get in and these days that is not to difficult. Texas State would have had the 2nd best RPI in the WAC this past season.

Apparently, you missed the part where I said "Adding someone in the east, along with NMSU, and the new scheduling rule... in a couple of years, we could be knocking on a second bid." I can see how you missed it though... I probably just didn't type it in the box.

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  It is not easy to get an at-large bid in a mid-major conference. The whole conference has to play better and/or there has to be two really outstanding schools in the conference. The MVC got an at-large bid because of Wichita State this past season. Wichita State is a top 25 program.

Without a 2nd bid, they are just an additional expense. There is no rush to add NMSU if the conference wanted to move to 12/14. First, the majority of schools in the SBC need to play much better basketball. Then it could be considered.

I'm not sure it is an additional expense. If we moved to a division set up, we wouldn't be sending our Olympic teams out to App State annually. We wouldn't be sending our teams to Georgia twice annually. We would be trading those trips with a trip to Las Cruces. It also increases the conference in Olympic sports, which puts us closer to the 2 bid league we all covet.

Blah Blah Blah - SOCON don't wanna pay no travel expenses .... yada yada.

Also, I like NMSU chances with their current roster, recruits and basketball program to be a more likely possibility to be a an at large - over any other program in the Belt now, except maybe the Cajuns and Panthers.

Adding NMSU yesterday shouldn't even be a debate. Only a small time, hillbilly,football fan only, deep south, FCS playoff-loving bumpkin wouldn't want them to join all sports.

Geez - why is this even discussed any more?

(06-26-2015 06:15 PM)epiccajun Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 01:42 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No, the only way you add to revenue is the 2nd bid and NMSU does not get you there alone. NMSU has never received an at-large bid in the WAC. They have had to win the WAC tournament to get in and these days that is not to difficult. Texas State would have had the 2nd best RPI in the WAC this past season.

Apparently, you missed the part where I said "Adding someone in the east, along with NMSU, and the new scheduling rule... in a couple of years, we could be knocking on a second bid." I can see how you missed it though... I probably just didn't type it in the box.

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  It is not easy to get an at-large bid in a mid-major conference. The whole conference has to play better and/or there has to be two really outstanding schools in the conference. The MVC got an at-large bid because of Wichita State this past season. Wichita State is a top 25 program.

Without a 2nd bid, they are just an additional expense. There is no rush to add NMSU if the conference wanted to move to 12/14. First, the majority of schools in the SBC need to play much better basketball. Then it could be considered.

I'm not sure it is an additional expense. If we moved to a division set up, we wouldn't be sending our Olympic teams out to App State annually. We wouldn't be sending our teams to Georgia twice annually. We would be trading those trips with a trip to Las Cruces. It also increases the conference in Olympic sports, which puts us closer to the 2 bid league we all covet.

Blah Blah Blah - SOCON don't wanna pay no travel expenses .... yada yada.

Also, I like NMSU chances with their current roster, recruits and basketball program to be a more likely possibility to be a an at large - over any other program in the Belt now, except maybe the Cajuns and Panthers.

Adding NMSU yesterday shouldn't even be a debate. Only a small time, hillbilly,football fan only, deep south, FCS playoff-loving bumpkin wouldn't want them to join all sports.

Geez - why is this even discussed any more?

.... . . Cause of our small time, hillbilly, football fan only, Deep South FCS playoff-loving bumpkin, don't wanna pay no travel expenses newbies. ... .

... . . Otherwise, beats me ....

(06-26-2015 09:03 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 07:18 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Could CCU leave football in the Big South?

No offense intended, but why would we (or any FCS team) want to do that? It would increase travel cost with no competitive advantage. Most of the Olympic sports are doing just fine where they are and wouldn't be improved by moving to the SBC. At best it is a lateral move that would cost more.

In 2015 ...
Big South baseball had a bit of a stronger RPI rating than the Sun Belt

The Sun Belt RPI was slightly higher in men's bball but both are one bid leagues

Sun Belt soccer is currently held together by affiliate members and doesn't even have a 6th team lined up in two years to guarantee the autobid.

The only reason to join the Sun Belt would be for FBS football. The benefits with FBS football would outweigh any other issues with olympic sports.

Pretty simple. To move yourself to the front of the list when/if you get your football program ready for the jump. Otherwise you can continue to be lumped with EKU and JMU who at any moment could make the push.

SBC plus CCU vs. BS minus CCU baseball would be a pretty big difference.

Long term it would be a better path.

(06-27-2015 12:47 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:03 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 07:18 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Could CCU leave football in the Big South?

No offense intended, but why would we (or any FCS team) want to do that? It would increase travel cost with no competitive advantage. Most of the Olympic sports are doing just fine where they are and wouldn't be improved by moving to the SBC. At best it is a lateral move that would cost more.

In 2015 ...
Big South baseball had a bit of a stronger RPI rating than the Sun Belt

The Sun Belt RPI was slightly higher in men's bball but both are one bid leagues

Sun Belt soccer is currently held together by affiliate members and doesn't even have a 6th team lined up in two years to guarantee the autobid.

The only reason to join the Sun Belt would be for FBS football. The benefits with FBS football would outweigh any other issues with olympic sports.

Pretty simple. To move yourself to the front of the list when/if you get your football program ready for the jump. Otherwise you can continue to be lumped with EKU and JMU who at any moment could make the push.

SBC plus CCU vs. BS minus CCU baseball would be a pretty big difference.

Long term it would be a better path.

There are just too many assumptions / risks. The SBC may not need a new football member for a long time or could choose to go with someone else when that time comes.

This would have all the costs of the SBC due to increased travel but none of the benefits of additional revenue.

Our loss of Olympic sports would significantly weaken the conference we would try to stay in as FCS football only members - which could trickle into the football side of things and cause the league to fold - which could happen anyway since there are so few members.

I've pieced together from a few different sources that we do have a stadium expansion plan and will be ready to expand the stadium after this season. I'm assuming the plans are contingent on a SBC invite. It will be difficult to increase fan support playing Big South, MEAC, etc. teams.

I don't think it makes any sense to move everything but football to the SBC on a promise.